Obama The Socialist

If there was ever any doubt that President Barack Hussein Obama is a socialist, this should remove it. In 2008, Obama was endorsed by, and was a member of, the far-left New Party. The New Party could best be described as social democratic in orientation. It is committed to socialism based on principles of social justice, community, responsibility, and democracy.

Two questions arise: (1) Who gets to define social justice, community, responsibility, and democracy? and (2) What is allowed if we do not agree with the definitions?

I guess 2008 was a very busy news year, so the MSM totally missed Obama’s ties with socialism.

Further, while speaking at the University of Michigan in 2010, Obama said: Don’t call our socialism “socialism!” He continued: We must doctor our language as well.

Unionized public-sector employment is the essence of the left’s moral ideal. No one has to worry about making a profit. Generous health-care and retirement benefits are provided to everyone by the government. Comfortable pay is mandated by legislative fiat. The work rules are militantly egalitarian: pay, promotion, and job security are almost totally independent of actual job performance. And because everyone works for the government, they never have to worry that their employer will go out of business. In short, public employment is an idealized socialist economy. Put it all together, and you have the Democrats’ version of Utopia.

But, unionized public-sector employment promises the full socialist ideal to a small minority, paid for with tax money taken from a larger, productive private economy. But the socialist utopia of public employment has crossed the Thatcher Line: the point at which you run out of other people’s money.

On the national front, Obama and the liberals/progressives/Democrats are panicking as their experiment with American socialism implodes. It has become quite clear that the old-age welfare state of Social Security and Medicare is driving the federal government into permanent trillion-dollar deficits and a ruinous debt load. Even Obama acknowledged that these programs are the real drivers of runaway debt.

Just so you know, Socialism, defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production, was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty.

Perhaps Obama has, since 2008, changed his politics? Let’s see. On January 22, 2012, Paul Roderick Gregory, at forbes.com, wrote: “By ‘socialist’ I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party. By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.”

You never did answer me in your previous article why it is that if having aspects of socialism is SO bad, that most of the states with the best standards of living in America are blue states (and most of the states with the worst standard of living are red states)…AND you ignore the point that almost ALL the first-world nations – you know, the nations that are much better places to live – almost ALL the first-world nations are SOCIALIZED DEMOCRACIES.

Why is that, Warren? If having a healthy dose (in liberal eyes) of socialism in a democracy is SO bad, why is it that when it comes to the living standards of the people, the blue states doing better than the red states? And why are the socialized democracies doing better than any other nation on earth?

I mean, if that ‘healthy dose of socialism’ was SO bad, why haven’t all the socialized first-world nations – even after in some cases over a full CENTURY of such socialism?

In 2008, Obama was endorsed by, and was a member of, the far-left New Party.

So if my urologist is a big fan of Kobe Bryant, does that make Bryant a doctor?

Kyle Hussein Socialist Solyndra-Hunter

Your first paragraph is so full of preposterous assumptions that it’s hard to know where to begin. Warren, you have pathetically deluded yourself into believing that by sheer volume of these half-truth, misleading and dishonesty-filled articles that you’re going to convince someone-anyone of your point of view.

Where is your fan club Warren? Where are the hoards of defenders galloping to your defense on these comments pages?

The last thing I want you to do is change your politics, because somewhere in there has to be someone reasonable with an intellect that can be connected with (as evidenced by all the people on this site that are trying to reason with you,) but for god’s sake man face the facts. You’re only making a fool of yourself!

Though I’ve only been visiting here for a short time, I’ve encountered people like Clavos, Dave Nalle and others who mostly share your political leanings, but they don’t make fools of themselves while expressing their views.

Your doing more damage to your cause than help. PLEASE come to realize that and adjust your style of writing, or you’re only going to be known around here as a foolish class clown not worth paying attention to who only does more and more outlandish things until the teacher gets fed up with you and makes you stand in the corner with a dunce cap on.

Kyle Hussein Socialist Solyndra-Hunter

I am beginning to suspect that the only reason that this website publishes your articles at all is not to endorse your point of view, or out of intelligent political fairness, but instead is to make people like you look as foolish as possible.

Anyone can write for Blogcritics, Karl – whoops, I mean Kyle – although new writers go through a probationary period to ensure that they actually can meet minimum standards of competency. And the editors have the discretion to reject articles that fall below those standards. As a BC editor and writer myself, I can assure you that articles do get rejected, although the editors will usually try to work with the author to bring a piece up to a publishable standard.

As generations of political commentators have demonstrated, it’s perfectly possible to have idiotic opinions and still be able to write.

Igor

Nothing wrong with being a socialist. Why, some of my best friends are socialists. And some are conservatives. I even know people who claim they’re going to vote for Romney! Now THAT is far out!

Kyle Hussein Karl Marx Solyndra-Hunter

If this keeps up I’m going to run out of room for my name my good doctor! “idiotic opinions” indeed!

I have given serious thought to jumping into the fray as it were and writing a few politics articles myself to counterbalance this nit, but I’m not sure I want to be associated with Warren as writing for the same website.

Does he really gather a lot or readers here, or is he just entertaining himself?

Kyle Hunter

Who was it that said, “Once you have made up your mind, facts are but a mere annoyance.”

Clavos

Doc:

If Kobe (whoever the hell he is) is a member of the New Party, does that make him a left winger?

Clavos-Mao-Fidel-Barack

Kyle Hussein Socialist Solyndra-Hunter:

According to research reports, Warren definitely does not hoard his hordes.

Re: #3 “Though I’ve only been visiting here for a short time, I’ve encountered people like Clavos, Dave Nalle and others who mostly share your political leanings, but they don’t make fools of themselves while expressing their views.”

Absofuckinlootly true!

Kyle Hussein Karl Marx Solyndra-Hunter

You forgot Chávez Clavos-it’s always good to be thorough.

Clavos

Damn! You’re right, Kyle!

And no all. I have no effing idea who Kobe is.

zingzing

how is that even possible? what level of cultural… i don’t even know what to call it… blindness? deafness? what void underneath what rock have you entered in order for this to be true? maybe it’s just not something you pay attention to, but he’s been really, really famous for a good 15 years now. it’s just hard to fathom that someone could escape ever having heard of kobe bryant…

Clavos: Depends. If Mr – sorry, Dr – Bryant decided sometime after 1998 that the life of a healer wasn’t for him, and that he was going to try his hand at basketball instead, would Warren believe him, or would he be convinced that he was still secretly practicing medicine?

If it’s a case of “once a socialist, always a socialist”, as Warren seems to imply, then what’s the solution? How are we ever to achieve a better, happier society if those dastardly reds are never going to change their wicked ways?

Or are the gas chambers the only answer?

Cannonshop

#17 Zing, for some folk, pro basketball players are simply irrelevant to their lives, kind of like how, for sports fans, knowing who your congressman is or what they stand for is irrelevant-as long as he/she is of the correct political party.

i.e. some people are bored as shit about pro sports figures. deal with it.

Cannonshop

#2 Doc, the important part isn’t the fandom, it’s the membership. a MEMBER of the New Party is a couple steps up from just thinking they’re kind of amusing.

Re: comment # 1, Glenn, you seem to be obsessed with the socialist blue states/red states question. The question you ask cannot be directly answered because of the concept of freedom. The majority in blue states prefer financial security for as long as it lasts, being kept, being told how to live, in exchange for social security (which is quite different from Social Security). The majority in red states prefer freedom, and think socialism is too high a price to pay.

But … in an effort to answer your question, in terms of things money can buy, Minnesota has the highest standard of living, while at the bottom are Washington D.C., Hawaii and California. Although Democrats tend to live in higher income states, they also live in higher cost of living states, so there is little correlation between a state’s monetary standard of living and its voting pattern.

Re: comment # 2, Dr. Dreadful, you say, “So if my urologist is a big fan of Kobe Bryant, does that make Bryant a doctor?” If your urologist is a member of the LA Lakers, then I would be inclined to answer affirmatively.

Re: comment # 3, Kyle…, are you denying that Obama was a New Party member?

Re: comment # 6, Igor, you say, “Nothing wrong with being a socialist.” I agree. Just please don’t force your failed economic philosophy on me. It’s fine if you like being kept, but I prefer freedom, to make my own decisions.

Re: comment # 8, Kyle, you say, “Who was it that said, “Once you have made up your mind, facts are but a mere annoyance.” Does that ever characterize this crowd.

Re: comment # 18, Dr. H. Dreadful, you say, “If it’s a case of “once a socialist, always a socialist”, as Warren seems to imply…” Imply, hell. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you can be sure it IS a duck. If that’s not enough, we have Barack Hussein Obama spouting socialist platitudes, and having the socialist agenda driving his economic policies.

troll

…of course he’s a socialist – but there’re socialists and then there’re socialists I guess

after all despite his protestations he has presided over a period notable for nationalized risk for privatized return and the loss of public sector jobs – and he blew the whole universal health care thing…something of a hallmark for socialists

at ‘worst’ he strikes me as more the wishy-washy social democrat type than the ardent democratic socialist…even if he does have designs to further nationalize the country’s surplus through tax policy or the like

Clavos

@#17:

Is there nothing you don’t know about?

I don’t follow celebrity news — there are probably dozens of people who’ve been famous for 15 or more years of whom I’ve never heard.

Glenn Contrarian

Warren –

Re: comment # 1, Glenn, you seem to be obsessed with the socialist blue states/red states question. The question you ask cannot be directly answered because of the concept of freedom. The majority in blue states prefer financial security for as long as it lasts, being kept, being told how to live, in exchange for social security (which is quite different from Social Security). The majority in red states prefer freedom, and think socialism is too high a price to pay.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! THAT, Warren, is without question the flimsiest excuse I’ve EVER seen on BC in all the years I’ve been here – “it can’t be directly answered because of the concept of freedom”! Oh, come on! How cheesy can you get! By your metric, Warren, the greatest nation on Earth is SOMALIA, since it doesn’t get any “freer” than that!

But … in an effort to answer your question, in terms of things money can buy, Minnesota has the highest standard of living, while at the bottom are Washington D.C., Hawaii and California. Although Democrats tend to live in higher income states, they also live in higher cost of living states, so there is little correlation between a state’s monetary standard of living and its voting pattern.

Of course, health insurance doesn’t tell the whole story. So here’s another list of healthiest states. This list was compiled by considering many factors including the rate of high school graduation, the violent crime rate, the percentage of children in poverty, the per capita public health funding, ready acc Once more, the top of the list is almost completely blue, and the bottom of the list is almost completely red.

This page on Wikipedia includes three tables of state rankings: by median household income, by per capita income, and by number of places with per capita income above the national average. As in the above references, blue states dominated the top of the lists, and the bottom of the lists were mostly red states.

“But we all know this is all because the red states pay so much in taxes that the politicians send to the blue states!” One could just hear the right-wing pundits taking such a line, but this table from the Census bureau clearly shows that the top ten RECIPIENTS of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are almost all red states…and the ten states that receive the LEAST federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are almost all blue!

So…except for drug use (which is generally higher in blue states), exactly how is it that red states have a better standard of living than blue states? Especially given that red states receive more federal funding than they pay out in taxes, whereas blue states receive LESS federal funding than they pay out in taxes? Hm?

Here’s a clue, Warren – it ain’t about the politics. It does NOT matter whether a state is red or blue…but the answer would only tick you off even more! But I’m not going to tell you that answer, not until you man up and back up your claim that red states have a higher standard of living than blue states.

Igor

Warren, you surrendered all your ‘freedom’ when you decided only one party could ever be right and the other party was always wrong. You no longer have volition.

for some folk, pro basketball players are simply irrelevant to their lives

That’s largely true, Cannon. For instance, I’m not at all interested in baseball or basketball, and I’d be hard put to name a single player on most teams in either sport. (My wife is something of a basketball fan, so I know a few more names there than I otherwise would.)

But it’s well nigh impossible not to have heard of an athlete who excels so highly in his sport that he becomes a household name. It’s been my experience that even my American friends who profess no interest in soccer whatsoever have heard of guys like Lionel Messi and David Beckham.

That said, I can just about believe it of Clav, who’s said on several occasions that he seldom watches TV.

If that’s not enough, we have Barack Hussein Obama spouting socialist platitudes, and having the socialist agenda driving his economic policies.

Warren, with respect (actually, not), you don’t have a fucking clue what socialism is.

I live the first 34 years of my life in a country that was governed for long periods by a party that was openly socialist. At its leftist zenith, Obama would have been laughed out of that party.

There’s a difference between socialism and social democracy. Not that I’d expect you, who (like many conservative Americans) see things only in terms of black/white and cannot distinguish degrees of anything, to understand that.

Obama espousing certain ideas that socialists also espouse does not make him a socialist, any more than my interest in genealogy makes me a Mormon.

Proud Comrade Kyle Hussein Socialist Marxist Pig-Hunter

Warren you have obviously proven the quote-“Once you have made up your mind, facts are but a mere annoyance.”

by the way I think it was a famous communist pig/socialism monger named Winston Churchill who said it.

Where is YOUR crowd defending your idiotic and slanted opinions presented as facts?

I would SOONER RELY ON FOX NEWS for facts on any subject than this or any article you publish-and that’s saying something!

Glenn Contrarian

Doc #28 –

Whoooooo – remind me not to make you mad. When it comes to cutting down others, Brits are usually known for caustically-demonstrative quips of their target’s intellectual shortcomings…but it seems you’ve adopted the ability to find other ways of making yourself understood – though I suspect in this instance it was more of a case of putting things in language that the intended recipient is more likely to comprehend.

Re: comment # 25, Glenn, you can define “standard of living” any way you want to (and did). However, and you cannot escape this fact, the bottom line is freedom. It’s fine if you want to give up your freedom to be kept. Again you try to hide behind your “analysis.”

Re: comment # 26, Igor, you say, “Warren, you surrendered all your ‘freedom’ when you decided only one party could ever be right and the other party was always wrong. You no longer have volition.” Coming from a Kool-Ade drinker like you, your statement is both ironic and humorous. I am free to examine ALL evidence, then draw my own conclusion. (and thank God for Rev. Jim Jones)

Re: comment # 28, Dr HD, you say, “Warren, with respect (actually, not), you don’t have a fucking clue what socialism is.” And now I am sure you are going to enlighten me.

Re: comment # 29, PC Kyle et al, you have used that quote before. And as I said to Igor above, “Coming from a Kool-Ade drinker like you, your statement is both ironic and humorous.”

Poor poor Glenn, all that trouble with all those links and Warren won’t believe a single one, much less read them.

Glenn Contrarian

Warren –

Glenn, you can define “standard of living” any way you want to (and did). However, and you cannot escape this fact, the bottom line is freedom. It’s fine if you want to give up your freedom to be kept. Again you try to hide behind your “analysis.”

Riiiiiight. It’s MUCH better to raise a family in a place where people are LESS educated, AND where they live SHORTER lives, AND where the murder rates are HIGHER, AND where the teenage pregnancy rates are HIGHER, AND where the birth mortality rates are HIGHER, AND where the divorce rates are HIGHER…

…because you think it’s freer there! Yep! You’re free to have LESS education, a SHORTER life – and one that’s more likely to be ended by a murder, with a teenage daughter who’s more likely to wind up pregnant, where your wife is more likely to have a stillborn birth – but HEY, that’s ALL OKAY, right? Because you’re more likely to get divorced so you don’t have to worry about them, right?

Like I said, according to YOUR metric, Somalia’s the best place on the planet to live, because they’ve got the smallest (actually, nonexistent) government – they REALLY stay out of your life there!

Warren, you obviously don’t have a clue to what freedom is. You can’t have freedom to carry a gun around if you’re not ALIVE and healthy enough to carry that gun. Freedom, sir, starts with LIFE, and then with EDUCATION, and then with having the OPPORTUNITY to live one’s life without fear.

You’ve obviously never had the wherewithal to ASK someone from Australia or New Zealand or Canada if they feel as if they’re not free, if they’re not educated, if they don’t have opportunities to better their lives! No, Warren, you DARE NOT ASK…because the answer would go against your dogma, and your dogma Must Not Be Questioned.

P.S. Remember, I was very much like you once. I did dare to question the dogma, to ask the questions, to look at the facts. That’s why I’m no longer like you.